What no sneak peeks? Boo! You teases you! :p

Gozer,

Patience is a virtue!

:o)

You forgot to mention that Studds received 3 standing ovations from Democrats in the House after they censured him.

You also forgot to mention that Frank allowed his prostitute friend to run his gay prostitution ring from Frank's APARTMENT.

Wasn't Jefferson's bribe $90,000....

They hypocrisy on the left is STAGGERING

Go get'em, Mark and Matt!

Mark, some virtues are just a pain in the ***

For your first set, you forgot to mention that those scoundrels were pushed out by a Republican House, Senate, and Executive. And I'll give you credit for your framing of the rest... nice spin job.

Winnow,

That actually makes it worse for your side...we GOPers don't tolerate unethical behaviour...you on the left will tolerate anything, as long as it votes left.

And when will we see a factual "documentary" at our local theatre? I haven't seen any movie in years, but this one I would. Release just before 08 elections I hope!

What a pleasant way to earn a living, and long overdue. Just as W needs to start kicking A and taking names, so do his supporters. Swift boat Vets were awesome and moreso would be a documentary.

we GOPers don't tolerate unethical behaviour

Oh, and you and your party are the ones that condones torture and has stripped the habeas corpus of suspects. You have lost EVERY claim to being an ethical party.

Someone needs to fight back, Mark/Matt, since our elected representatives choose to fight each other.

Willemena, you really don't have a dog in this hunt, so why don't you butt the f*ck out?

Warriornation, yeah, it was 90K, but who's calling him "respected"?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Jefferson

Please cite your references that state that Barney Frank "has a male prostitute living in his apartment" as that reads present tense. Stephen Gobie, the prostitute, was gone by late 1987.

Nate:
They're all present tense AND they're nearly all past events... it's how you write lists (you keep your tenses similiar... it's a writing convention)...

wow... did you think you were going to win this huge smack down? Please.

Barney Frank allowed a male prostitute (who he was dating) run a prostitution ring from Frank's house. Yet he didn't resign. Why? Where's your outrage now? And there was a Democratic Speaker then...

it's always breathtaking the ease with which some rightwingers summarily nullify and minimize the charges against their own while trumping, inflating, and even making-up those claims against the left. not only is it hypocritically ingenuous, it's an alarming indication of how low you plan to set the bar for your own "research and editorial" standards for your coming book.

Don't buy the parallel construction here--or anywhere it could be misunderstood. All the examples in the past should be past tense and those ongoing should be in present (at the time of the publishing)--not bothered by grammarians, would prefer clarity. Nope, not interested in smack downs.

All one has to do is look at the number of indictments handed down to people in the Clinton administration or FOB's compared to those handed down to those connected to the Bush Administration, to realize the corruption on the Left. But I forgot, the Clintons are the Heroes and Saviors of the Left.

who are these two orangies? Both are stuck on the same old same old. Now alert is claiming that he right 'trumps, inlfates, and even makes up' things about the Left. So I guess Mary Jo Kopechne really didn't die, trying to claw her way out of the car her lover drunkenly ran off into the water, while he and his cronies sat around in a hotel room trying to figurre out if htey could hide the accident and protect the Kennedy name? I guess that money in Jefferson's freezer was not really there? Or not really frozen? That those people sent to prison for their Whitewater crimes were not really guilty? What?? What has been "inflated"? What has been "made up"?

On the other hand, Ronnie Earle had to seat three (THREE) grand juries to get anything at all on DeLay, and then it was for doing something that was legal when he did it. On the other hand. Fitzgerald had to fall back on getting people to repeat themselves over and over and over again until he got a discrepcancy or two, and then had to "inflate" that by calling it "obstruction of justice" though the discrepancies were not in any way relevant to any crime, or to the discovery of information Fitz had before he started.

If Hastert had gone after Foley for a couple of extremely benign e-mails, he would have been crucified as an anti-gay bigot. Even now, the AA spin was that the Republican pressure to get Foley to resign was really just anti-gay (or maybe just general anit-sex) intolerance. And remember, it is now officially OK for any high ranking government official to engage in any kind of sexual escapade with any teenaged subordinate, as long as it is consensual. This is the new standard, otherwise known as the Clinton Amendment.

If the Dems had come down hard on their own, they would have a better standing for their pious posturing about morality issues on the right. But when they embrace every type and degree of degeneracy they pretty much abandon the higher moral ground they are now trying to claim.

And the Oranje Willie is still whining about how the right "condones torture'. Very yesterday, Willie. Only the looniest of the loony are still stuck on that lie.

You love, I know, to simply invent definitions and then act as if they have any merit. Actually, this is one of the main weapons in the Left arsenal. But the only way you can cling to your silly silly silly claims of "torture" is to define nearly everything as such. Being uncomfortable, being unhappy, being scared, feeling "demeaned"....according to your silly rule book, merely not liking being questioned would be torture. By your definition, I can sue Safeway for torture because they play Barbra Striesand "music".

I think everyone who insists on calling our interrogation techniques "torture" ought to be required to watch those videos of the Sadaam torture rooms, and the videos of people having their heads sawed off, before they can spout their nonsense. That is to say, to learn what torture really is befoe they start applying the word to everything short of not enough nuts on their banana splits.

And anyone who simpers about the poor enemy combatants not being automatically given the same protections given to Americans under the American constitution, written for the country of America, while they are trying to destroy that country and that constitution, ought to have to actually understand the Constitution, and just accept the claims of some paid mouthpiece hired to spew fanatical hatred inot the airways.

Of course, the off-color Willy might prefer to ensure that all those enemy combatants go free, so they can have another shot at us, or even at him. Why NOT make public the names of those who turned them in? Isn't that only fair? So WHAT if it would have a "chilling effect" on informants? Wouldn't it make the loony left happy?

But you all just keep calling international monitoring domestic, keep calling electronic intercepts wiretapping, keep calling basic interrogation techniques torture, keep defining enemy combantants as those covered by the American Constitution. We love it.

And even more, we love seeing you all whine and whimper and piddle yourselves when we laugh at you and call you silly twits for being so ignorant.

Orange and Nate,

You might want to think it over a bit...what you're doing is trying to dodge the issue with a pettifogging complaint about grammar...

If you really believe in what you say, then you MUST demand that Frank, Jefferson and Kennedy resign their offices...

1. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott says something nice about Senator Strom Thurmond, and he's forced out of his Majority Leader position.

Har! I know the point of your little book is to preach to the choir using right-wing facts instead of, you know, regular facts, but please don't expect normal people who know better to go along with it. What was the "nice thing" that Trent Lott said? He said that the country would've been better off had Strom Thurmond--and his racist, segregationist views--taken the White House. Nice to see you defend that, Noonan. Yet another piece of the wingnut puzzle falls into place.

You guys are missing the mark (no pun intended) big time. The people who find the Mark Foley scandal sick and will be turned off by it (probably enough to stay home come election day) are the moral conservatives who make up a large segment of the republican base.

Those people already think that Bill Clinton and the rest of the democratic party are degenerates and depraved deviants. Republicans have been the ones playing they "we're more moral than they are" card all of these years to get them on their side and it is finally come back to bite you all. Unfortunately for your side, they have also managed to let down the moral conservatives on a host of issues and this latest episode will be seen by them as the last straw. Hence, your majority is screwed come Nov 7.

The beauty of all of this is that you can't blame the demoncrats or the moonbat "MSM" for this. You did it to yourself! Sure, you can list a host of democratic scandals past, present and future, but in the long run it will not make a difference. They only way to possibly get a handle on this is for everyone involved to take responsibility for their part in it (hard concept for a republican to grasp, I know) and let the chips fall where they may. In any event, your screwed!

the GOP MO is really laughable - "blame everyone but ourselves!"

dear, dear - how is that for the party that claims to have the moral pulse of america

Nate, where did I say Frank still has him living with him? Where did I say respected?

Seems you have targeted the wrong poster, but at least you got the $90k correct.

dear, dear - how is that for the party that claims to have the moral pulse of america

Aren't they just doing what Democrats have been doing for years?

The only difference is that Foley resigned...Studds, Frank, Clinton, etc, etc, etc didn't.

In actuality, I guess the Republicans act like the moral cancer that the Dems are and Foley not only shouldn't have resigned but given 3 standing ovations like Studds got.

The left...the party of the utmost hypocrisy

Exactly what point are you trying to make "Warriornation?"

If your point is that Bill Clinton and a host of other democrats got caught up in scandals in the past, then I think we can all pretty much agree on that point. However, if your point is that the democrats are trying to use this to score political points, then you need look no further than your own party for the people who have lined up to throw the House leadership, starting with Hastert under a bus. They, along with democrats and the so-called MSM are calling for investigations into this as well as for Hastert to step down.

As I stated before, bringing up scandals of old does no good. The moral conservative base of your party already has a negative opinion about liberals. Anyway, this isn't about democrats and what they have done. This is about the republican party and how they have conducted themselves in their eyes. Pointing out past democratic scandals does no good in convincing them that republicans have their best interest at heart. I guess so long as Foley was successful at raising money for the party and held a republican seat the other stuff just didn't matter.

You guys are screwed!!!!!!!!!

You guys are missing the mark (no pun intended) big time. The people who find the Mark Foley scandal sick and will be turned off by it (probably enough to stay home come election day) are the moral conservatives who make up a large segment of the republican base.

Those people already think that Bill Clinton and the rest of the democratic party are degenerates and depraved deviants. Republicans have been the ones playing they "we're more moral than they are" card all of these years to get them on their side and it is finally come back to bite you all. Unfortunately for your side, they have also managed to let down the moral conservatives on a host of issues and this latest episode will be seen by them as the last straw. Hence, your majority is screwed come Nov 7.

The beauty of all of this is that you can't blame the demoncrats or the moonbat "MSM" for this. You did it to yourself! Sure, you can list a host of democratic scandals past, present and future, but in the long run it will not make a difference. They only way to possibly get a handle on this is for everyone involved to take responsibility for their part in it (hard concept for a republican to grasp, I know) and let the chips fall where they may. In any event, your screwed!

Posted by: Ethan at October 5, 2006 01:26 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhuh Ethan, You couldn't be more inaccurate! Go talk to a "Moral conservative", please. Before you start talking like your some expert. We are happy to see a man like Foley thrown too the wolves(good riddance to him), contrasted by studds, if Foley was a Democrat he would be lauded a hero rather than a disgrace(your perogative).

Now take me for instance. I am very involved in my christian standards and lifestyle. If Foley had kept his sexual orientation to himself and not been "OUTED" by demoncrat politico's, he would still be a fine senator in my book. But since his lustful disgusting habits have gotten him in trouble, I for one don't want him reprsenting me. Am I angry with the republican party? Yes! Because of Foley? Hell no! Because of issues? Hell yes! Am I willing to turn my country over to the party that "Stabs each other in the back"? No way! Or the party that refuses to recognize right from wrong and the dangers of the GWOT? Hell no! How about the party that wants to raise taxes and give me some crappy global health care system? Uhuh, no way! The party that refuses to come up with solutions to issues that are near & dear to my heart have no place in my political system, and the sooner they exit our system the better! Please continue down this road and do us a favor! THIS IS ONE REPUBLICAN THAT NOW VOTES ACCORDING TO PARTY LINES SPECIFICALY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS COUNTRIES SURVIVAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ethan...I'm not a Republican so I don't know what "your party" actually means.

As an independent who believes in morals am I supposed to vote for liberals or conservatives?

I'm going to vote for conservatives EVERY TIME. Unfortunately for you guys, MOST of them are on the GOP side.

He said that the country would've been better off had Strom Thurmond--and his racist, segregationist views--taken the White House. Nice to see you defend that, Noonan. Yet another piece of the wingnut puzzle falls into place.

Get real.

Warriornation,

Woops, left a Mark out of that comment...it was Mark Noonan with the present tense list and calling WJ respected--credit where it's due.

It's a sad party(DemonCrats) that CANNOT WIN elections in an honest way. They, as losers, do a 'hit and run' on issues to smear those in office
with their lies, innuendo and MSM as their partners. They try to "oust those in power" by these methods, and it has worked in several cases.
It is my thought, that the Republicans that have been caught in the lies of the Dems, "Have folded,
and NOT FOUGHT BACK, IN THE WAYS THE DEMS DO. THE GOP DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPOND "IN KIND", WITH THE SAME 'STREET FIGHTING, DOWN AND DIRTY WAYS OF THE DEMS, AND THE RESULT, IS THEM COWERING
AT THE FIRST SIGN OF SOME SMEAR CAMPAIGN, AND THEY FOLD UP THEIR TENTS, AND GO AWAY. I SAY, SHOW SOME TOUGHNESS, AND FIGHT THESE LOSERS IN THE SAME TOUGH WAY, AS YOU(GOP'S) NEED TO FIND SOME REAL BACKBONE.

I CERTAINLY HOPE HASERT TELLS THEM TO F OFF, AND SHOWS THEM THE DOOR. HE BETTER NOT EVEN 'THINK' OF STEPPING DOWN. "THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT-A WAY TO GET RID OF THE WHOLE DAMN ADMINISTRATION"

ARE YOU REPUBLICANS LISTENING? OR DO YOU WANT THEM TO GET RID OF EACH OF YOU, ONE BY ONE? SHOW SOME DAMN BALLS WILL YOU? PELOSI(LIKE A STREET FIGHTER, THOUGH A LIAR, FIGHTS DIRTY EVERY DAY, AND MAYBE YOU COULD TAKE SOME LESSONS FROM HER)
STAND UP, AND CUT THE "NICE GUY ROUTINE"-
THE DEMS ARE CHEWING UP YOU GUYS EACH AND EVERY DAY. THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT
AS DO HIS PEOPLE, AND KNOCK DOWN EACH DAILY LIE FROM THE DEMS, ON A DAILY "TRUTH SQUAD BASIS"- TO DO OTHERWISE, LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE GETTING THE STUFFING BEATEN OUT OF YOU. SOMETIMES, YOU HAVE TO LEARN TO THROW THE DEMS CRAP, RIGHT 'BACK ATTEM'

Byrd is a member of my party, the independents? That's odd--I thought he was a Democrat. It's kind of funny how when you don't belong to a party, it makes partisan smear attempts look even stupider than usual, eh Leo? Way to lower the bar!

So you're in favor of Thurmond's segregationist views, then? It would appear to be so as you certainly aren't refuting Thurmond's racist outlook. No, your response is instead to point out that somebody else is a racist as though that justifies conservative racism. Way to jump into the tu quoque fallacy (I'll wait while you Google the term "tu quoque fallacy") with both feet, Leo. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of educator? Looks like you need a rigorous education of your own.

I've been steaming about this all week...but the fact is, as Republicans, we are held to a higher standard. It isn't fair...it might not even be right, but it is true. Being a Democrat allows you to get away with much, much more. It sucks.

"Bearman" you can only really speak for yourself (and maybe some of the other people in this echo chamber), can't you? Just because this Foley mess hasn't changed your mind about voting republican, you honestly can't say the same about other republicans, conservatives, etc. As I've said, they've already made up their minds regarding liberals, so I'm not naive enough to believe that they are going to vote democrat (however, some might just to prove a point). More than likely, they are going to just stay home out of frustration because they now believe that there is no one in Washington looking out for their interests.

"Warriornation," as an independent I actually hold you to a higher standard than most people here. Actually, I'm also an independent. As such, you should be able to see beyond the hype of both parties. Liberal and conservative are just labels used to help polarize the people. The reality most people live by (unless they're fanatics) is that they're a little bit of both, depending on the issue. Not all so-called liberals lack morals, just like, as we've discovered thanks to Mr. Foley, all so-called conservatives have them. What usually happens in Washington is that the party wielding the most power at the time let's it go to their head and they believe that they can do or say anything. Both democrats and republicans have been guilty of it.

You all should read and re-read the post by "John." That basically sums up the point that I'm trying to make. The moral conservative wing of the republican party hold their politicians to a higher standard. In an effort to hold on to their vote, the republican party has done everything to demonize the democrats so as to prove that they are "morally superior." The problem with that is that they also succeeded in setting a standard that has proven impossible for any of them to live up to.

Don't Republicans (or conservatives?) want to be held to a higher standard? As the party of morals don't they ask to be looked at as the higher standard? (Not that there really is one--everyone has their baggage, just a question of whether or not it ever sees the light of day or the black and white of print.)